Ellington v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellington v. Goord

290 A.D.2d 919, 736 N.Y.S.2d 639, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 846

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 31, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 919 (Ellington v. Goord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellington v. Goord, 290 A.D.2d 919, 736 N.Y.S.2d 639, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a deter[920]*920mination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing weapons. As set forth in the misbehavior report, the reporting correction officer was assisting in a routine search of petitioner’s dormitory when he observed petitioner running from his cube toward the end of the building, holding an object in his hand which he proceeded to place under a radiator. When the officer looked under the radiator, he found an eight-inch-long metal shank.

At the ensuing disciplinary hearing, evidence was presented in the form of, inter alia, the misbehavior report and the testimony of the reporting correction officer. This proof was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Thomas v Bennett, 271 AD2d 768; Matter of Joyce v Coughlin, 219 AD2d 777, 778). Petitioner’s assertion of Hearing Officer bias is unsupported by the record which shows that he received a fair and impartial hearing (see, Matter of McCorkle v Selsky, 264 AD2d 890, 891). Petitioner’s testimony, in which he asserted his innocence of the charged misconduct, as well as the exculpatory testimony of his inmate witness, presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Baldwin v Goord, 262 AD2d 691, 692). The remaining contentions raised by petitioner have been reviewed and found to lack merit.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a deter[920]*920mination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing weapons. As set forth in the misbehavior report, the reporting correction officer was assisting in a routine search of petitioner’s dormitory when he observed petitioner running from his cube toward the end of the building, holding an object in his hand which he proceeded to place under a radiator. When the officer looked under the radiator, he found an eight-inch-long metal shank.

At the ensuing disciplinary hearing, evidence was presented in the form of, inter alia, the misbehavior report and the testimony of the reporting correction officer. This proof was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Thomas v Bennett, 271 AD2d 768; Matter of Joyce v Coughlin, 219 AD2d 777, 778). Petitioner’s assertion of Hearing Officer bias is unsupported by the record which shows that he received a fair and impartial hearing (see, Matter of McCorkle v Selsky, 264 AD2d 890, 891). Petitioner’s testimony, in which he asserted his innocence of the charged misconduct, as well as the exculpatory testimony of his inmate witness, presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Baldwin v Goord, 262 AD2d 691, 692). The remaining contentions raised by petitioner have been reviewed and found to lack merit.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 919, 736 N.Y.S.2d 639, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellington-v-goord-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack